I would challenge you to find such a thing. The Earth is flat was actually a non-scientific belief, and it was very early science like investigations that dispelled it. What orbits what was also a question that was solved before science, or what we call science, even existed. They're not cases where "scientific data" is shown to be faulty. The closest I could think of is maybe gravity, where the law of gravity was refined because of the inaccuracies of Newtons measurements compared to modern day equipment, but again thats a refinement, not a complete reversal.
It's possible that something new will escape from the future. It's possible to have FTL under Einstein given a few things (like some way out of causality), but it's also possible, and actually more likely that a new theory will take Relativity's place and be even more anti-FTL. But even if it does turn out to be possible, that doesn't mean it's achievable...
how was it non scientific? The reasons behind it were the science of the time which we now find laughable but some time from now people may find our current knowledge just as laughable. Maybe they're not cases where scientific data is shown to be faulty, they're cases where scientific data is proven to be insufficient due to lack of technology and knowledge which resulted in an inaccurate theory. Once again the same can become of our current science.
how was it non scientific? The reasons behind it were the science of the time which we now find laughable but some time from now people may find our current knowledge just as laughable. Maybe they're not cases where scientific data is shown to be faulty, they're cases where scientific data is proven to be insufficient due to lack of technology and knowledge which resulted in an inaccurate theory. Once again the same can become of our current science.
That's in particular cases true. But our current knowledge about nature and physics and our skills to prove theories with experiments have so much evolved that quantum leaps are rather unlikely today (but not impossible). That's my personal point of view as a natural scientist.
how was it non scientific? The reasons behind it were the science of the time which we now find laughable but some time from now people may find our current knowledge just as laughable.
In the same way that existentialism isn't science. Science has developed over time, at the time of the flat earth and earth at the centre of the universe, there was no science. They were philosophies not scientific theories, there's a massive difference. It's nothing to do with how much knowledge they had, it's to do with how they arrived at those ideas. Science and the Scientific method is a relatively new invention.
The point is it wasn't the science of the time. They didn't even have science back then.
Maybe they're not cases where scientific data is shown to be faulty, they're cases where scientific data is proven to be insufficient due to lack of technology and knowledge which resulted in an inaccurate theory. Once again the same can become of our current science.
It happens all the time, I've given you a couple of examples (Gravity and Newton vs Einstien) but if a theory works today, it's got to work tomorrow for the same situations. You're arguing that the laws of physics can suddenly change because we haven't got perfect measurements, but the best you can expect on that score is an attenuation. Newton's law of gravity wasn't thrown away, it was adjusted, slightly.
In the same way that existentialism isn't science. Science has developed over time, at the time of the flat earth and earth at the centre of the universe, there was no science. They were philosophies not scientific theories, there's a massive difference. It's nothing to do with how much knowledge they had, it's to do with how they arrived at those ideas. Science and the Scientific method is a relatively new invention.
The point is it wasn't the science of the time. They didn't even have science back then.
It happens all the time, I've given you a couple of examples (Gravity and Newton vs Einstien) but if a theory works today, it's got to work tomorrow for the same situations. You're arguing that the laws of physics can suddenly change because we haven't got perfect measurements, but the best you can expect on that score is an attenuation. Newton's law of gravity wasn't thrown away, it was adjusted, slightly.
Oh boy. I've had this discussion with other people so many times and usually at the end of the argument everything is the same as at the beginning, so I highly doubt any opinions will change here but oh well. Religious ideas aside the earth is flat idea was derived from what people could see at the time. Look you walk on the ground, it's flat, you can go to other places and there just as here it's flat, there is an up and the is a down, completely 2d. The lack of knowledge prompted people to believe this is the way it is because it made sense at the time. If you would go to a person from like 1000 bce and try to explain what the LHC is to him/her it would be so much that they wouldn't understand or believe it at all. Same as science 3000 years from now could be so different and so above anything we have now, it may not even really be called science anymore, the idea as a whole may become obsolete. You just don't know because so much changes over time. Or it might not. The laws of physics just like every other set of scientific theories is the best only to a certain time that other ideas come that work out better. All I'm saying is that too many times in the past have people said that they know the secrets of the universe just to be proved completely bs some time later. It's just ignorant to think so again.
I think the real question is "Who cares?" This is a site for science FICTION! It is the person's who creates the universe decision as to whether or not they have FTL. Alnair has chosen not to have it. I have it in my universe. I think that we should just leave it at that and stop debating whether or not FTL is possible. (Leave that to the people who still think in reality )
Furthermore, Alnair, when's the next update? I'd love to see it.
Religious ideas aside the earth is flat idea was derived from what people could see at the time. Look you walk on the ground, it's flat, you can go to other places and there just as here it's flat, there is an up and the is a down, completely 2d.
All I'm saying is that too many times in the past have people said that they know the secrets of the universe just to be proved completely bs some time later.
? Totally misrepresenting what I'm saying. You're claiming that something has happened in the past, and you're just assuming that it has. But it hasn't, kind of a sticking point with your case.
Boys, as the thread starter I would say we all calm now down a bit! The discussion was interesting up to this point. I wouldn't appreciate it if my thread turns into a flame war about the limits of scientific knowledge.
Furthermore, Alnair, when's the next update? I'd love to see it.
Only a little bit more patience... I'm currently working at UV mapping the last components. Modelling is almost finished. The next updates will follow as soon as possible.
Boys, as the thread starter I would say we all calm now down a bit! The discussion was interesting up to this point. I wouldn't appreciate it if my thread turns into a flame war about the limits of scientific knowledge.
I enjoyed the discussion you were having on FTL travel but we all know that the world was flat till bugs bunny tossed that 'American' baseball west and it came back from the east (with all those passport stamps all over it)...
Great looking ship. Spectacular attention to detail. You may want to fade out your very well drawn emblems though depending on her age of course. An interesting thought just occurred to me though. If the ship is indeed traveling faster then light then light really wouldn't effect it (not much fading/bleaching). Only during those times it wasn't on the FTL drive.
... If the ship is indeed traveling faster then light then light really wouldn't effect it (not much fading/bleaching). Only during those times it wasn't on the FTL drive.
Great ship can't wait for more...
That would depend on the choosen method of FTL travel. If the ship is hypothetically enclosed in its own miniature universe (as in Star trek) and the boundary surface of that miniature universe isn't totally impermeable photons or particles from the "normal" universe could certainly hit the ships hull with high radiant or kinetic energy. That would cause the abrasions we are used to see on TV shows.
That would depend on the choosen method of FTL travel. If the ship is hypothetically enclosed in its own miniature universe (as in Star trek) and the boundary surface of that miniature universe isn't totally impermeable photons or particles from the "normal" universe could certainly hit the ships hull with high radiant or kinetic energy. That would cause the abrasions we are used to see on TV shows.
I don't think it would effect it at all. Usually FTL travel is a reference to traveling between two points in less time than a beam of light would take, not literally traveling at a greater velocity than that beam of light. In the Star Trek case, the ship stays at rest, and space-time moves around it, but it is sitting still in it's own frame of reference. What holds for most even mildly plausible FTL drives is that the space craft itself is not traveling faster than the speed of light within it's own frame of reference.
I don't think it would effect it at all. Usually FTL travel is a reference to traveling between two points in less time than a beam of light would take, not literally traveling at a greater velocity than that beam of light. In the Star Trek case, the ship stays at rest, and space-time moves around it, but it is sitting still in it's own frame of reference. What holds for most even mildly plausible FTL drives is that the space craft itself is not traveling faster than the speed of light within it's own frame of reference.
... but the surrounding does. I think that is not a discrepance to my statement. If the boundary is permeable particles could impact with their original kinetic energy on the ships hull even when they are transfered to the ships frame of reference.
... but the surrounding does. I think that is not a discrepance to my statement. If the boundary is permeable particles could impact with their original kinetic energy on the ships hull even when they are transfered to the ships frame of reference.
One of the really weird things about relativity is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light under any conditions (that's a bit simplified, admittedly). The particles can't be moving at a greater velocity than c, regardless of the relative motion of the space craft, in an Einsteinian universe.
Say you have two photons traveling towards each other. They're both traveling at the speed of light, the common sense assumption is that the apparent closing speed would be 2*c. But what actually happens is that the apparent closing speed is c, due to relativistic time dilation.
One of the really weird things about relativity is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light under any conditions (that's a bit simplified, admittedly). The particles can't be moving at a greater velocity than c, regardless of the relative motion of the space craft, in an Einsteinian universe.
Say you have two photons traveling towards each other. They're both traveling at the speed of light, the common sense assumption is that the apparent closing speed would be 2*c. But what actually happens is that the apparent closing speed is c, due to relativistic time dilation.
I totally agree on that. The photons will probably hit the ship with the velocity they had before they pierced through the boundary. And regarding the two mentioned photons in your example. The speed would be c but their energy would increase because the wavelenght of one beam of light would decrease seen from the frame of reference of the other one of the photons.
I totally agree on that. The photons will probably hit the ship with the velocity they had before they pierced through the boundary. And regarding the two mentioned photons in your example. The speed would be c but their energy would increase because the wavelenght of one beam of light would decrease seen from the frame of reference of the other one of the photons.
Hmm, I'm not sure, relativistic length contraction and time dilation might make the wavelength appear to decrease to an outside observer, but I'm not sure if that would actually increase the photon energy. From the photons own frame of reference nothing will have changed. Certainly when the photon energy is measured from the others frame of reference it would seem to increase, and all frames are equally valid, but I'm not sure what the consequences would be.
EDIT:
^ Chalk it up to early morning posting. A Spacecraft travelling at a high percentage of c will find even visible light blueshifted as far as the gamma ray end of the spectrum. Doppler shifts imply and increase in photon energy.
Modelling is finished now! A few minor parts still need UV-mapping, but that's a task I will deal with on the fly . Now I will concentrate on texturing - my weakest skill regarding the construction of virtual worlds... so bear with me.
BTW, orthos will follow soon.
[sarcasm]yeah, 'cause the textures you have on there now are just awful![/sarcasm]
I know, I know! And I'm deeply ashamed!
But to be honest, I really have to improve my texturing skills. Currently I'm building my textures in a rather inefficient way - a fact that increases the size of my project files significantly.
Nice, very nice. My only complaint is the text used for the name is rather hard to read easily.
Was a hard decision for me which font should be used. I tried a few, amongst others a modern sans serif font. But it didn't feel right. So I chose the Fractura a font commonly used in the German-speaking part for newspapers and other publications until 1946 . All ships of the High Seas Fleet had their names also printed in Fractura on their nameplates.
Posts
how was it non scientific? The reasons behind it were the science of the time which we now find laughable but some time from now people may find our current knowledge just as laughable. Maybe they're not cases where scientific data is shown to be faulty, they're cases where scientific data is proven to be insufficient due to lack of technology and knowledge which resulted in an inaccurate theory. Once again the same can become of our current science.
That's in particular cases true. But our current knowledge about nature and physics and our skills to prove theories with experiments have so much evolved that quantum leaps are rather unlikely today (but not impossible). That's my personal point of view as a natural scientist.
The point is it wasn't the science of the time. They didn't even have science back then. It happens all the time, I've given you a couple of examples (Gravity and Newton vs Einstien) but if a theory works today, it's got to work tomorrow for the same situations. You're arguing that the laws of physics can suddenly change because we haven't got perfect measurements, but the best you can expect on that score is an attenuation. Newton's law of gravity wasn't thrown away, it was adjusted, slightly.
Oh boy. I've had this discussion with other people so many times and usually at the end of the argument everything is the same as at the beginning, so I highly doubt any opinions will change here but oh well. Religious ideas aside the earth is flat idea was derived from what people could see at the time. Look you walk on the ground, it's flat, you can go to other places and there just as here it's flat, there is an up and the is a down, completely 2d. The lack of knowledge prompted people to believe this is the way it is because it made sense at the time. If you would go to a person from like 1000 bce and try to explain what the LHC is to him/her it would be so much that they wouldn't understand or believe it at all. Same as science 3000 years from now could be so different and so above anything we have now, it may not even really be called science anymore, the idea as a whole may become obsolete. You just don't know because so much changes over time. Or it might not. The laws of physics just like every other set of scientific theories is the best only to a certain time that other ideas come that work out better. All I'm saying is that too many times in the past have people said that they know the secrets of the universe just to be proved completely bs some time later. It's just ignorant to think so again.
Furthermore, Alnair, when's the next update? I'd love to see it.
Only a little bit more patience... I'm currently working at UV mapping the last components. Modelling is almost finished. The next updates will follow as soon as possible.
No problem!
Watch and see for yourselves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYFInegGh4A
Great looking ship. Spectacular attention to detail. You may want to fade out your very well drawn emblems though depending on her age of course. An interesting thought just occurred to me though. If the ship is indeed traveling faster then light then light really wouldn't effect it (not much fading/bleaching). Only during those times it wasn't on the FTL drive.
Great ship can't wait for more...
I think I got it right and I enjoyed the discussion. This thread is always open for a good scientific dispute as long as it's not getting personal!
That would depend on the choosen method of FTL travel. If the ship is hypothetically enclosed in its own miniature universe (as in Star trek) and the boundary surface of that miniature universe isn't totally impermeable photons or particles from the "normal" universe could certainly hit the ships hull with high radiant or kinetic energy. That would cause the abrasions we are used to see on TV shows.
I will do my best not to do so...
... but the surrounding does. I think that is not a discrepance to my statement. If the boundary is permeable particles could impact with their original kinetic energy on the ships hull even when they are transfered to the ships frame of reference.
Say you have two photons traveling towards each other. They're both traveling at the speed of light, the common sense assumption is that the apparent closing speed would be 2*c. But what actually happens is that the apparent closing speed is c, due to relativistic time dilation.
I totally agree on that. The photons will probably hit the ship with the velocity they had before they pierced through the boundary. And regarding the two mentioned photons in your example. The speed would be c but their energy would increase because the wavelenght of one beam of light would decrease seen from the frame of reference of the other one of the photons.
EDIT:
^ Chalk it up to early morning posting. A Spacecraft travelling at a high percentage of c will find even visible light blueshifted as far as the gamma ray end of the spectrum. Doppler shifts imply and increase in photon energy.
BTW, orthos will follow soon.
[sarcasm]yeah, 'cause the textures you have on there now are just awful![/sarcasm]
Fraktur (script) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9385/fraktur.png
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/4596/textur.gif
I know, I know! And I'm deeply ashamed!
But to be honest, I really have to improve my texturing skills. Currently I'm building my textures in a rather inefficient way - a fact that increases the size of my project files significantly.
Was a hard decision for me which font should be used. I tried a few, amongst others a modern sans serif font. But it didn't feel right. So I chose the Fractura a font commonly used in the German-speaking part for newspapers and other publications until 1946 . All ships of the High Seas Fleet had their names also printed in Fractura on their nameplates.
Beautiful modelling, not on you own regarding the texturing, it is my weakest part too.